![header21[1].jpg]( "header21[1].jpg")
* The myth of consensus. Some oppose to the changes stating that changes were not made through consensus. As if any constitution was ever made by consensus in Turkey. In fact, a major constitutional change led by a ruling government which was at least elected is a first in Turkish history…
* If AKP was able to cooperate with CHP, MHP and BDP, would there be better changes? I don’t think so. Turkish opposition is far behind AKP in terms of democratic reforms. They are more interested in maintaining status quo through which they have a chance of existence.
* In abstract, all proposed changes point out a more democration situation. So why the opposition?
* Major opposition to changes is about the status of high judiciary and military judiciary system. At present state, they are closed circuit institutions, guardians of Kemalist ideology and a continuous obstacle to EU process. The proposed changes opens up the criteria to become a member of these institutions. They were instituted like this by the military coup d’etat regime so that they would be guard the proposed political and judicial system. Now AKP means to change it and I certainly support that…
* Thus “Independent judiciary” is a big lie. Existing judiciary system was built under military tutelage and is certainly not independent.